Lots of AEC users actually would prefer subscription model. The hand-wavy economic main reason is subscriptions go from opex and purchases would go from capex and companies generally prefer opex to capex.
The business model of large AEC companies is a bit different than that of hollywood VFX subcontractors. The projects for one are already expensive and the data itself is a critical part of the deliverables (instead of just a rendering of the data).
Re:Autodesk criticised by architects
by imtringued on Monday August 03, 2020 @04:37AM
(#24035362)
As a FreeCAD user I don't understand why FreeCAD absolutely despises chamfers and fillets. The dedicated chamfer and fillet tools are just bad. I can do the fillet by hand without any problems. Just create a sketch and revolve the cut or sweep the cut along the chamfered edge. Works perfectly fine but it takes much longer than it should.
I don't really know about the architectural tools. I've used Inventor, Fusion 360, and Maya. Autodesk became a leader in 3D animation software because the animation software companies kept going bust. Silicon Graphics bought Alias and Wavefront and came out with Maya. Then SGI got run over when gamer graphics cards became good enough to make SGI workstations obsolete. (Also, a badly timed sale and leaseback deal with Goldman Sachs for the property that is now the Google campus in Mountain View.) When SGI tanked, Autodesk picked up Maya.
Softimage was also picked up. They had a good 3D animation system, and then they came out with an early pro-grade film and video editing program. Avid, which used to sell overpriced furniture with built-in computers as editing stations, bought Softimage to get control of the editing software. They had no idea what to do with the animation software and sold that to Autodesk.
Then there was Lightscape, which had the first good radiosity renderer, but by itself a renderer wasn't a viable product. So Autodesk bought that.
Autodesk managed to get all those pieces to play well together, and now they're all part of Maya. Autodesk ended up owning the Hollywood-grade animation business.
A side effect of owning the animation business was that the architectural tools had really good rendering. Good enough that you could put all the light fixtures where they would go on the real building, and see how the finished building would look when lit. This was a big win when you needed to sell your design to the customer for the building. That's not so exotic today, but it was ahead of its time 20 years ago.
On the engineering side, getting computational solid geometry to work right is hard. There's free software for that. Try threading a rod and then applying a chamfer on the end. It works in Inventor and Fusion. FreeCAD, not so much. This is an area where the distance between "works for the easy cases" and "just works" is considerable. There's a reason that Autodesk employed a "staff geometer", a geometry theorist. Or play with the 2D constraint system in the Fusion 360 sketch module, where you designate A is tangent to B, C is parallel with D, circle E is tangent to the three circles F, G, and H (that required a new solution to the Problem of Apollonius) and watch it make the drawing consistent.
(Disclaimer: I'm an Autodesk stockholder, but haven't been involved with the company for decades.)